T11163
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Mick Abbott Plumbing Pty Ltd (in liquidation)
Industrial dispute - severance pay in respect of termination of employment as a result of redundancy - order issued REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On 17 November 2003 the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, applied to the President, pursuant to s.29(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, for a hearing before a Commissioner in respect of an industrial dispute with Mick Abbott Plumbing Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) arising out of severance pay, superannuation and long service leave in respect of termination of employment as a result of redundancy of Mark Broomfield, Craig Canhan, Luke Davis, Paul Desoza, Terence Harold, Brett Shea, Scott Stevens and Jonathan Triffit. The employees were employed under the terms of the Plumbers Award of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission. [2] The matter was heard at the Commonwealth Law Courts, 39-41 Davey Street, Hobart on Friday 19 December 2003 at 9.30 am. Mr P Fraser appeared for the applicant union and Mr R Shoobridge appeared as the liquidator of the company. [3] The background to the dispute is that on 2 October 2003 Mr Shoobridge was appointed Official Liquidator of Mick Abbott Plumbing Pty Ltd. Mr Shoobridge has made application for funding under the Commonwealth Department of Employment and Workplace Relations' General Employee Entitlements Redundancy Scheme (GEERS). Payments have been made in relation to unpaid wages and annual leave entitlements. There are outstanding claims by the employees concerning contributions made to Tasbuild pursuant to the Construction Industry (Long Service Act) 1997, superannuation payments, and severance payments. These claims are the subject of this dispute. [4] The union provided a document showing which claims were being made in respect of which employees1. Superannuation payments were sought for all the employees with the exception of Mark Bromfield, long service leave contributions were sought for all the employees, and redundancy payments were sought for Craig Canham, Luke Davis, Terence Harold, Scott Stevens and Jonathon Triffitt. [5] Mr Fraser submitted that the quantum of severance pay as a result of redundancy should be determined on a case-by-case basis as set out in the Full Bench decision in matter T125 of 1985, which was an application by the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council to vary the Retail Trades Award. He said that he would "be happy" with two weeks' wages for each year of service. [6] Mr Shoobridge submitted that as far as superannuation and long service leave contributions are concerned, there are clear provisions which deal with those which, in his belief, are adequate and accordingly the Commission need only deal with the issue of payments in respect of redundancy. [7] He said that the job environment in Tasmania is now very different to what it was in 1985 and therefore the Commission should apply flexibility in terms of the standard payment awarded. He said that the economic circumstances in Tasmania were the best in 30 years and that should be taken into account. The employees in question had found employment very quickly, and the Commission should consider the purpose of a redundancy payment. FINDINGS [8] I accept the submissions of Mr Shoobridge that there is no necessity for the Commission to issue Orders in respect of superannuation and long service leave contributions because there are adequate provisions dealing with these matters, and confine this decision to severance payments in respect of redundancy. [9] It is not disputed that a genuine redundancy situation exists, therefore the only matter to be determined is the quantum of the severance payments. [10] It was contended by Mr Shoobridge that the Commission should take into account the positive economic circumstances currently prevailing in Tasmania and the fact that the employees concerned quickly found alternative employment. [11] It is well-established that the purpose of a redundancy payment is not that it is a payment just intended to compensate for wages lost during a period of unemployment, but it is a payment intended to take into account a variety of factors, such as years of service, dislocation, loss of accrued entitlements such as untaken sick leave and accrued time towards long service leave, and loss of seniority. Other factors taken into account are whether or not the employer has fulfilled their obligation to take reasonable actions to assist employees to find alternative employment. Failure to do so has, on occasion, resulted in a larger payments being awarded than might otherwise have been the case. [12] In the circumstances of this case, I have decided that an appropriate payment is two weeks' wages for every completed year of service or part thereof. ORDER I hereby order, pursuant to s.31 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, that the respondent, Mick Abbott Plumbing Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) ACN 056549298 (R Shoobridge c/- Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu), ANZ Centre, Level 9, 22 Elizabeth Street, Hobart, Tasmania 7000, pay to each of the former employees whose names appear below the amounts specified below, in full and final settlement of the industrial dispute referred to in T11163 of 2003, such payment to be made no later than 5.00 pm on Friday 26 March 2004.
P C Shelley Appearances: Date and place of hearing: 1 Exhibit A1 |